• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

The Passinwind Open Source Preamp

Charlie, so nice to read they all sound PDG! I wonder if you could share what sound emphasis and circuit choices makes one more EB vibe and one SUB vibe? Is it how asymmetric the Bax range is on cut/boost? Where the mid is situated? Input Z? Stuff I don't know about yet? :)

I think it primarily comes down to the transient response in the bass register, which I can manipulate with trades between the HPF and the Bax bass section. URB seems to benefit from a bit higher and tighter HPF tuning, which makes sense to me given how small tight sounding amps often tend to be URB players' default choice. Thud vs. sustain trades, for starters. This is super fun stuff to play with on the design end, and also to play test myself on a weekly basis.
 
There seems to have been a lot of development since the last time I read this thread. Is there anywhere I can still get the original 3band onboard pcb?

I just bought a fretless that could use a new preamp and the lpf seems like an interesting option. I'm between building this or building a darkglass tone capsule . I'm not interested in building a pedal at the moment.
 
There seems to have been a lot of development since the last time I read this thread. Is there anywhere I can still get the original 3band onboard pcb?

I just bought a fretless that could use a new preamp and the lpf seems like an interesting option. I'm between building this or building a darkglass tone capsule . I'm not interested in building a pedal at the moment.

The v1 board is still on share at OSHpark, but parts supply has been an ongoing hassle. Also, finding reverse taper dual pots to fit in back routed basses still requires a custom solution at this time. You may be able to use @bowthing's pot adapters, so please tell us a little more about your new fretless and we can examine whether there's a fit for your needs. I've done some new tunings for the original board and would love some user feedback if the match is there.
 
SOLD - Ibanez TR500 Fretless Bass

It's an Ibanez TR500 with some overwound single coil type pickups. I don't actually have the bass yet (I bought it today) but the preamp is pretty noisy in the demo. I'm sure some shielding could help but I want a new preamp just for the fun of it.

I'm shooting for a Pino/Donny Benet type of tone. Thicker than Jaco's tone but still having a vocal midrange

Filter preamps can be great for fretless, let's see what we have to work with when you get it in.

And Jaco's live sound often had immense bottom end at the two shows I caught, FWIW. Way too much in one case actually. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: AudioTaper
Speaking of onboard mounting, the V2.8 through-hole board you pictured in post 1208 looks very nice and maybe small enough to mount in a bass, Charlie. Or two of them, in a bass. Given that one could deal with shaft length, battery drain, room, lead noise, etc., my question to any one:

> When using two pickups, it more musically useful to have an active EQ for each of two pickups and mix them or to mix them and have one EQ, afterward?

I have no experience, but do differing phase shifts from parallel filters being set to differing EQ's, and then being summed, make weirder interactions than summing, and then a single EQ stage?

Is that effect completely overwhelmed by the effects of sampling the string in two different places?

Is the increase in noise a problem when summing two EQ's with 16XX generation chips?

I realize it's nice to have 2 EQ's as presets for single pickups and some beloved basses and players have two EQ's. Just wondering if it's worth the trouble?

Thanks.
 
Speaking of onboard mounting, the V2.8 through-hole board you pictured in post 1208 looks very nice and maybe small enough to mount in a bass, Charlie. Or two of them, in a bass.

We'd probably want/need to wire the pots and maybe the switch offboard, but it might be viable. The first set of v2.8 test boards just showed up in any case:

125Bv2_Board.png



I think @bowthing could probably answer your questions better, I've still never actually tried a per-pickup build yet myself.
 
Speaking of onboard mounting, the V2.8 through-hole board you pictured in post 1208 looks very nice and maybe small enough to mount in a bass, Charlie. Or two of them, in a bass. Given that one could deal with shaft length, battery drain, room, lead noise, etc., my question to any one:

> When using two pickups, it more musically useful to have an active EQ for each of two pickups and mix them or to mix them and have one EQ, afterward?

I have no experience, but do differing phase shifts from parallel filters being set to differing EQ's, and then being summed, make weirder interactions than summing, and then a single EQ stage?

Is that effect completely overwhelmed by the effects of sampling the string in two different places?

Is the increase in noise a problem when summing two EQ's with 16XX generation chips?

I realize it's nice to have 2 EQ's as presets for single pickups and some beloved basses and players have two EQ's. Just wondering if it's worth the trouble?

Thanks.
I designed my preamp to be able to do either one, because I had a lot of these questions as well. It has a pre-blend slot for each pickup and a post blend slot. You can plug any filter/eq module into any slot. I've tried putting the 3 band parametric EQ on each pickup, and what gets overwhelmed is me! It's almost impossible to do anything predictable! The classic LPF filters are the best for per-pickup. They are simple and repeatable enough to be useful.

You are dead on regarding phase. Because the signals of the pickups are substantially similar, and because the phase gets inverted near the peak, there is an almost complete cancellation at certain filter settings and frequencies. If the filters are at the exact same frequency, then the peak stays up full, but when they are slightly apart, both peaks end up being at about half the level. As you move farther apart in frequency, the peaks come back up, but there is a region in between where there is phase cancellation, which gives a kind of scooped sound. It's all very useful and interesting sounding, but I think some folks think of the two filter responses simply being added together, which isn't the case. With a post blend filter/eq, you can't hear the phase shift, so it sounds exactly like what you picture in your head. Of course the blend dramatically changes this, because you are turning down one of the signals that is cancelling the other. That's why you can keep a lot more treble if you roll the blend very slightly toward the filter that is set up high.

As for the sensing location, everything is still Jazz Bass. You get the same mellowing of harmonics in the middle, etc with either setup.

Noise is no different with per-pickup. In fact it seems like it is quieter with two filters. Maybe a real EE can comment, but I think the noise partially cancels (in the same way that two 100k resistors in parallel are as quiet as a 50k resistor). Page 37 of Self (third edition) discusses it with Multi-Path Amplifiers, which are incredibly quiet. I use the same circuit for blend, so that would explain why it seems quieter than a single EQ. Curiously, if you are using single-coils, you can balance noise with the filters! You can set the blend off center, then by adjusting the filters you are essentially trimming the gain and you can dial the noise back out! I use it a lot.

Presets for sure. That's why I have a bypass switch socket on every filter slot. It's super nice to be able to toggle one or both filters on or off on the fly (you could do a full eq per pickup and replace the blend pot with a switch to make things less confusing). I'm a big fan of bypass switches.
 
The v2.8 test board turned out to have one important resistor omitted, but at least I only bought 5 this time. I was able to fly in the resistor no problem, so these boards will still make perfectly decent prototypes. And fixing the layout was dead simple, so no worries. Just need a pre-drilled enclosure in hand to let me line the pots up correctly, and I should be good to go. So a day or three, probably.

125B.jpg


And even though the layout is set up for through-hole parts, I used inexpensive SMD opamps I had on hand on adapter cards, because I can! ;)
 
Thanks for your very useful reply, bowthing. It's great to learn how things shake out.

"It's almost impossible to do anything predictable!"

That's what I wondered, and you give a very clear explanation of the effects from detuning the resonances, the same as seen in speaker/enclosure tuning, radio heterodyning, pedals with an oscillator, etc.

"It's all very useful and interesting sounding"

And because the filter frequency is fixed, while the string frequency changes, the comb effects are different for each note, too. I gather one can dial up some "complexity" to the sound, but it might be uneven in loudness, note to note, in the lower range?

"Of course the blend dramatically changes this, because you are turning down one of the signals that is cancelling the other. That's why you can keep a lot more treble if you roll the blend very slightly toward the filter that is set up high."

This seems the additional capability of EQ/PU, compared to EQ after blending, the ability to manipulate inter-pickup resonances for variable Q cancelations and boosts. For better or worse.

A PU phase switch in there, somewhere, would even add to the fun, I expect.

EQ/PU seems something for those who can manage a big complexity rig, live, or have time to explore, when recording.

"The classic LPF filters are the best for per-pickup. They are simple and repeatable enough to be useful."

"Noise is no different with per-pickup. In fact it seems like it is quieter with two filters."

Happy to hear noise is not a problem, I would have guessed it increased 3 dB, for uncorrelated noise.

Thanks for taking the time to write that up, bowthing.
 
"Page 37 of Self (third edition) discusses it with Multi-Path Amplifiers, which are incredibly quiet. I use the same circuit for blend, so that would explain why it seems quieter than a single EQ. Curiously, if you are using single-coils, you can balance noise with the filters! You can set the blend off center, then by adjusting the filters you are essentially trimming the gain and you can dial the noise back out! I use it a lot."

I'd ask how that works, bowthing, but I wouldn't understand the answer.

What I will ask, of anybody, is there a (nonproprietary) blend circuit that you've found to be better for pickup summation than active stages driving a blend pot? Using a blend pot into an opamp with a NFB resistor loop?

Thanks
 
I designed my preamp to be able to do either one, because I had a lot of these questions as well. It has a pre-blend slot for each pickup and a post blend slot. You can plug any filter/eq module into any slot. I've tried putting the 3 band parametric EQ on each pickup, and what gets overwhelmed is me! It's almost impossible to do anything predictable! The classic LPF filters are the best for per-pickup. They are simple and repeatable enough to be useful.

You are dead on regarding phase. Because the signals of the pickups are substantially similar, and because the phase gets inverted near the peak, there is an almost complete cancellation at certain filter settings and frequencies. If the filters are at the exact same frequency, then the peak stays up full, but when they are slightly apart, both peaks end up being at about half the level. As you move farther apart in frequency, the peaks come back up, but there is a region in between where there is phase cancellation, which gives a kind of scooped sound. It's all very useful and interesting sounding, but I think some folks think of the two filter responses simply being added together, which isn't the case. With a post blend filter/eq, you can't hear the phase shift, so it sounds exactly like what you picture in your head. Of course the blend dramatically changes this, because you are turning down one of the signals that is cancelling the other. That's why you can keep a lot more treble if you roll the blend very slightly toward the filter that is set up high.

As for the sensing location, everything is still Jazz Bass. You get the same mellowing of harmonics in the middle, etc with either setup.

Noise is no different with per-pickup. In fact it seems like it is quieter with two filters. Maybe a real EE can comment, but I think the noise partially cancels (in the same way that two 100k resistors in parallel are as quiet as a 50k resistor). Page 37 of Self (third edition) discusses it with Multi-Path Amplifiers, which are incredibly quiet. I use the same circuit for blend, so that would explain why it seems quieter than a single EQ. Curiously, if you are using single-coils, you can balance noise with the filters! You can set the blend off center, then by adjusting the filters you are essentially trimming the gain and you can dial the noise back out! I use it a lot.

Presets for sure. That's why I have a bypass switch socket on every filter slot. It's super nice to be able to toggle one or both filters on or off on the fly (you could do a full eq per pickup and replace the blend pot with a switch to make things less confusing). I'm a big fan of bypass switches.

Thanks Tim. You directly addressed a few things that had been discouraging me from just popping a realtively simple per-pickup build into my test bass. Sounds like I probably have been chasng a lot of extra complication I may easily not need, but I reckon it's about time to figure that out one way or the other! :cool:

Meanwhile, last night I got to test this new Gorva S90 build I did for myself side by side with the last two v4 builds in the bigger 1590BBS format:

Cham8_4.jpg


@dcoyle, the 1590BBS build you will be doing quite soon now is very very close to the same spec electronically and hopefully you'll be as happy with it as I am with this one.
 
Last edited:
v2 test enclosures came in last night, the control tick alignment is not perfect but should be fine with a little hand filing. All the controls line up with the holes OK, switch one needs to be enlarged by ~2.4mm as expected. So I may have a tester up and running by this afternoon. Those boxes cost me twenty bucks each, including DHL shipping that took just under a week. Onward!

Tayda_v2_2.jpg
 
Everything fits fine and I just need to plumb in an LED and do the final wiring, probably tomorrow because a cold beer seems like more fun at the moment!

View attachment 5053416
When do you guesstimate the parts and plans for these pedal builds will be available for us DIYers? I think I’m about ready to give one a go after following this thread for some time!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Passinwind
When do you guesstimate the parts and plans for these pedal builds will be available for us DIYers? I think I’m about ready to give one a go after following this thread for some time!

The next gen main circuit boards should ship early next week, they started in fabrication at JLCPCB this morning. So I'm hoping everything wil be bedrock in 2-3 weeks. I may have a couple of extra boards if you'd like to play beta tester with one. I just ordered breakout boards for the mid switch and bypass switch yesterday as well, and would also have spares for those.

I took a big swing at revising the board layout and it looks a lot nicer now to me, at least. And I worked up several different color schemes for the Tayda print files, although I'm really hoping to see some custom user ones.
 
Hey, Charlie, that looks nice. :) A very high altitude sky blue, in that picture.

I've been intrigued by your comments about voicing the HPF for SUB, or Mandolin, or EBG, so I spent parts of the last week figuring out how the the HPF part of the circuit behaves. I had thought your only consideration for choosing part values was musical taste. Unlike the circuits I had dealt with before, in this matrix, positive feed back is just waiting to go awry. I now realize there is no simple answers to "how do you adjust it for EBG, or lower the frequency?", and why you say you'd have to SPICE a change to say something about it.

And then yesterday morning, getting ready to post my questions, I (re)bumped in to the Sallen-Key filter. So a big Duh! on my part. Bass ackward learning style, I am.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Passinwind
New v2 boards arrived yesterday. Not perfect, but easy enough to get up and running properly in short order:

V2take2.jpg


So beta testers will have to wait another couple of weeks for their boards, but in the meantime I'll have two working test versions to test some final circuit tweaks on.

And then a few days ago I dropped a new two filter preamp in my Marco Bass:

MSCP5_1.jpg



...which turns out to work surprisingly well for being a first attempt. Looking forward to some fine tuning though.